Citations

This study compared orofacial muscle strength between normal and dysarthric speakers and across types of dysarthria, and examined correlations between strength and dysarthria severity. Participants included 79 speakers with flaccid, spastic, mixed spastic–flaccid, ataxic, or hypokinetic dysarthria and 33 healthy controls. Maximum pressure generation (Pmax) by the tongue, lips, and cheeks represented strength. Pmax was lower for speakers with mixed spastic–flaccid dysarthria for all tongue and lip measures, as well as for speakers with flaccid or spastic dysarthria for anterior tongue elevation and lip compression. Anterior tongue elevation and cheek compression tended to be lower than normal for the hypokinetic group. Pmax did not differ significantly between controls and speakers with ataxic dysarthria on any measure. Correlations were generally weak between dysarthria severity and orofacial weakness but were stronger in the dysarthria groups with more prominent orofacial weakness. The results generally support predictions that orofacial weakness accompanies flaccid and/or spastic dysarthria but not ataxic dysarthria. The findings support including type of dysarthria as a variable of interest when examining orofacial weakness in motor speech disorders.

AbstractBackgroundIndividuals with Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech (PPAOS) have AOS as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. Past research has shown that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co‐occurring language deficits. Previous studies suggest measures of disease severity do not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients over a one‐year interval, measured by 1) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and 2) the speech‐language pathologist via ASHA's Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted Motor Speech Disorder (MSD) severity rating and determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures (e.g. Western Aphasia Battery‐Revised Aphasia Quotient, Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale‐3).MethodSeventeen patients (10 male) with progressive AOS were seen for a second visit approximately one year following the first visit. The measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at each visit and qualitatively compared.ResultThere were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Comparison of correlations suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures may change over time.ConclusionThe findings of this study support the use of patient reported outcome measures, like the CPIB, as they may better reflect the patient experience and associated changes in day‐to‐day functioning when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease.

AbstractBackgroundThe Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo clinic has followed patients with degenerative speech and/or language disorders for over a decade. In this presentation I will present data from this cohort to inform a broader discussion about the importance of apraxia of speech (AOS) and its subtypes, heterogeneity within the agrammatic PPA variant, and perils of mixed phenotypes.MethodWe reviewed the NRG database to identify patients who initially presented with isolated (PPAOS), AOS in conjunction with agrammatic aphasia (AOS‐PAA), isolated agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and patients who had PAA or AOS overlapping with another degenerative diagnosis. Data from the following clinical instruments were abstracted: WAB AQ (aphasia severity), UPDRS III (parkinsonism), WAB Praxis (ideomotor apraxia), and the MoCA (cognitive ability). We assessed the effect of baseline diagnosis and AOS subtype on these outcomes over time using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. We qualitatively reviewed longitudinal diagnostic trajectories. Preliminary analyses were done on available autopsy data.ResultPAA was associated with greater aphasia at baseline and more rapid decline; PPAOS was associated with normal language at baseline and slow decline; and PAA‐AOS with intermediate baseline aphasia and decline. However, for those with AOS longitudinal decline differed based on AOS subtype: prosodic PPAOS was associated with the slowest decline and phonetic PAA‐AOS with the fastest. Some patients met criteria for non‐PPA disorders during follow up. However, compared to patients who met criteria for these disorders at enrollment, the speech/language‐first patients remained qualitatively distinct, and neither resembled the cases that were mixed at onset. Preliminary autopsy data suggests that AOS is predictive of tau and that the specific tauopathy may be related to the initial syndrome and AOS subtype.ConclusionThe differences between PAA, PAA‐AOS and PPAOS suggest that these disorders should not be lumped. In fact, the longitudinal trajectories are sufficiently different that doing so would add noise to observational and interventional studies. Instead, more detailed phenotyping, including AOS subtype, can aid prognostication and may improve prediction of the underlying pathology. Finally, caution should be exercised when considering PPAOS and PPA patients for other FTLD diagnostic categories.

AbstractBackgroundLogopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) have distinct patterns of hypometabolism and atrophy. However, these clinical syndromes overlap: visuospatial impairment has been documented in LPA and aphasia in PCA. Rey‐Osterrieth Complex Figure – Copy (Rey‐O Copy) performance is correlated with parietal‐occipital atrophy in LPA. We explore visuospatial impairment on the Rey‐O Copy in LPA and PCA with the Mayo Older Americans Normative Studies (MOANS; which uses Meyers & Meyers criteria) and the Boston Qualitative Scoring System (BQSS). We also examine the proportion of visuospatial impairment in LPA, an under‐appreciated phenomenon, compared to PCA wherein it is fundamental.MethodPatients with LPA (n=25) or PCA (n=23) were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group. Patients underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing (including Rey‐O Copy) at baseline visit. Cut‐offs of T‐score=40 (BQSS) or scaled score=7 (MOANS) were used based on normative data. Proportions of patients with low performance were examined across LPA and PCA groups. Individual logistic regressions and AUROC analyses were then conducted to quantify differences in visuospatial impairment in LPA and PCA with both scoring systems. Identical analyses were conducted using raw scores corrected for age and sex, to avoid confounds of adjustments in normative data.ResultLPA and PCA groups were comparable on age, sex, and disease duration (LPA Median = 2.7 years, IQR=1.9‐3.5; PCA Median = 3.6 years, IQR=1.5‐4.9); p=.823). Surprisingly, 52‐72% of LPA participants demonstrated impaired performance across scoring systems, relative to 96% of the PCA group identified by both scoring systems. Odds ratios (OR) for the Rey‐O Copy MOANS (OR = 1.59; p=.008) and BQSS Copy Presence and Accuracy index (CPA; OR = 1.13, p=.002) were significant, persisting for age‐ and sex‐ controlled raw scores, suggesting the odds of a PCA diagnosis increased with decrement on Rey‐O Copy. AUROC values ranged from 0.77 to 0.88 across these indices.ConclusionA substantial number of LPA participants showed visuospatial impairment, despite initial primary language complaints. Differentiation of diagnostic groups by the Rey‐O is likely underscored by relatively uniform, profound, visuospatial impairment in PCA with more variability in LPA. However, the degree of visuospatial impairment overlaps remarkably across diagnoses.

AbstractBackgroundMagnetic resonance brainstem measurements are useful structural biomarkers in the Richardson's syndrome variant of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). However, it is unclear how these biomarkers differ across the phenotypic spectrum of PSP and how they relate to underlying pathology.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare brainstem imaging measures across clinical variants of PSP and determine sensitivity and specificity based on pathologically diagnosed cases.MethodsA total of 153 patients with PSP who represented eight clinical variants were recruited at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) and underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Midbrain and pons area and superior and middle cerebellar peduncle width measurements were performed, and midbrain/pons ratio and Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index (MRPI) were calculated. Among the 43 patients who later died, PSP pathology was confirmed in 29, whereas 14 had other pathology.ResultsBrainstem measurements varied across PSP clinical variants and were most abnormal in PSP‐Richardson's syndrome and frontal variants, followed by PSP‐corticobasal, PSP‐speech/language, and PSP‐parkinsonism variants. All these variants showed abnormalities compared with controls. The PSP‐gait freezing variant and patients with prominent corticospinal tract signs showed normal brainstem measures. Among cases with confirmed PSP pathology, the midbrain area, midbrain/pons ratio, and MRPI were all more abnormal compared to those with other pathologies, with best differentiation obtained with the MRPI (sensitivity = 83%; specificity = 85%).ConclusionsMRI brainstem measures show utility as diagnostic biomarkers across PSP clinical variants and have the potential to be useful in predicting underlying pathology. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

ABSTRACTBackgroundApathy and depression commonly occur in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP)‐Richardson's syndrome variant; depression often requiring treatment. Little is known, however, about apathy and depression among other PSP variants.MethodsWe prospectively studied 97 newly diagnosed PSP patients. All were classified into a PSP variant using the 2017 Movement Disorder Society‐PSP criteria and administered the Geriatric Depression and Apathy Evaluation Scales. Differences in apathy and depression frequency and severity across six variants, and secondarily across PSP‐Richardson's syndrome, PSP‐Cortical and PSP‐Subcortical, were analyzed using ANCOVA and linear regression adjusting for disease severity.ResultsDepression (55%) was more common than apathy (12%). PSP‐Speech/Language (PSP‐SL) variant had the lowest depression frequency (13%) and lower depression scores than the other variants. No differences in apathy frequency/severity were identified.ConclusionPSP‐SL patients may have less depression compared to PSP‐Richardson's syndrome and other PSP variants.

We describe two individuals with progressive verbal difficulty who exhibited impairment of propositional language, with relatively well-preserved auditory comprehension, naming, and repetition—a profile that is consistent with dynamic aphasia. By providing a brief review of pertinent literature and the results from our neurologic, speech and language, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging testing, this report sheds light on the infrequently reported dynamic aphasia in the context of frontotemporal dementia. Our patients’ insights into their verbal difficulty tend to support the notion that dynamic aphasia results from interference at the stage where thoughts are converted into verbal messages—that is, the thought–verbal interface.

Purpose: The purpose of this clinical focus article is to illustrate how speech-language pathologist (SLP) characterization of anarthria can contribute to neurological diagnosis and to highlight the challenges associated with such an endeavor. Method: Used in this study are a retrospective chart review and clinicians' experience-based reflections. Results: A 65-year-old man, who, in the context of a neurodegenerative disease, presented with near-complete-loss of speech, was referred by neurologists to SLPs for further characterization of his speech difficulty. Assessment of his limited speech output revealed anarthria with mixed features (spastic and hypokinetic) with superimposed apraxia of speech. Conclusions: SLP characterization of anarthria to facilitate neurological diagnosis is challenging but possible. Clinical lessons learned from this unusual scenario are discussed.

ABSTRACTBackgroundProgressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) may present as a speech/language disorder (PSP‐SL).ObjectiveWe assessed pathological correlates of patients with PSP‐SL who retained the suggestive of PSP‐SL (s.o. PSP‐SL) diagnosis versus those who progressed to possible/probable (poss./prob.) PSP.MethodsThirty‐four prospectively recruited patient with s.o. PSP‐SL completed comprehensive speech/language and neurological assessments longitudinally, died, and underwent autopsy.ResultsTwelve patients (35%) evolved to poss./prob PSP, while 22 (65%) remained as s.o. PSP‐SL. Pathological diagnoses differed across the groups (P = 0.025). Patients with s.o. PSP‐SL had four different neuropathologies (corticobasal degeneration [59%], PSP [13%], Pick's disease [14%], and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP‐43 [14%]), while all patients with poss./prob. PSP had a 4R‐tauopathy (PSP [67%] and corticobasal degeneration [33%]). Development of poss./prob. PSP increased the chance of having PSP pathology by 2.38 times.ConclusionsPSP‐SL is associated with heterogenous pathologies. Evolution of PSP‐SL into poss./prob. PSP is more predictive of underlying PSP pathology than s.o. PSP‐SL. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech have apraxia of speech (AOS) as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. It was previously demonstrated that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits ( Utianski et al., 2020 ). Measures of disease severity did not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this follow-up study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients, again measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating to determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures at follow-up after 1 year. Method Of the 24 patients reported in the study of Utianski et al. (2020) , 17 (10 men, seven women) returned for a second visit approximately 1 year following the first visit. Identical procedures were utilized; the communication measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at the second visit and for the change in scores on those measures between the first and second visits. Results There were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Correlation analyses suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures are complex; overall, patients with more severe changes in AOS experienced greater changes in participation restrictions. Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of patient-reported outcome measures as they may better reflect the patient experience, including the influence of factors such as ongoing speech therapy and the emergence of neuropsychiatric features, and associated changes in day-to-day functioning, when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528512